On Tue, 06/07 15:30, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 June 2016 at 15:00, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 7 June 2016 at 04:24, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> On Mon, 06/06 12:53, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> The eval trick for defining DOCKER_SRC_COPY doesn't do anything
> >>> useful, as DOCKER_SRC_COPY is immedi
On 7 June 2016 at 15:00, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 June 2016 at 04:24, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> On Mon, 06/06 12:53, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> The eval trick for defining DOCKER_SRC_COPY doesn't do anything
>>> useful, as DOCKER_SRC_COPY is immediately expanded just after it
>>> is defined, and CUR
On 7 June 2016 at 04:24, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 06/06 12:53, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> The eval trick for defining DOCKER_SRC_COPY doesn't do anything
>> useful, as DOCKER_SRC_COPY is immediately expanded just after it
>> is defined, and CUR_TIME is already defined using ":=". Simply
>> define
On Mon, 06/06 12:53, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> The eval trick for defining DOCKER_SRC_COPY doesn't do anything
> useful, as DOCKER_SRC_COPY is immediately expanded just after it
> is defined, and CUR_TIME is already defined using ":=". Simply
> define it using ":=" so it is evaluated only once.
>
>
The eval trick for defining DOCKER_SRC_COPY doesn't do anything
useful, as DOCKER_SRC_COPY is immediately expanded just after it
is defined, and CUR_TIME is already defined using ":=". Simply
define it using ":=" so it is evaluated only once.
The eval trick was also triggering an weird error on Tr